It started with a bicycle kick. Unbeknown to an American audience, It was Pele, featured in the credits of ABC's Wide World of Sports. Many now recognise the programe as the USA's first widespread exposure to football. Soon after the great man was there in person, coming out of semi retirement to play for the New York Cosmos in the 1975 season. It was the first in a succession of attractions attempting to quench America's perceived thirst for the spectacular. Since then the USA has been witness to the underwhelming genius of Freddy Adu and the ticker tape parade of David Beckham, each marketed by the MLS as big new attraction to get people through the gates. When David Beckham scored from 60 yards against Kansas City Wizards, the LA Times haled it as a 'wonder goal', also reporting that 60 yards was 'more than 60% of the soccer field'. This exposure wasn't aimed at American football fans of which there are many, contrary to popular belief in Europe. It was aimed at fans of the NBA, NFL and NHL, who, not for the first time, needed to be 'sold' football as an alternative to what they were already watching.

I think there are two issues here. Firstly, football shouldn't need glamming up in this way. If these clubs spent money on improving their players and the general standard of play, they would get more exciting matches. An argument I hear often is that football in the USA has a battle on its hands competing with the NBA, NFL and NHL and that is has to show a facade of excitement to boost attendances. But there was a time in this country when football was not a middle class sport and Sky has created a nation of armchair football supporters. The Premier League is increasingly becomming a pastime for the rich when it used to be rugby union and cricket that were more important. The Twenty 20 adaptation of test cricket has also attracted huge support, the Indian Premier League is an ambitious project which is going from strength to strength. The evidence is there that there is room for football in the USA's sports calendar, if it is marketed in the right way. People haven't chosen their sports and set that choice in stone, it's just that right now what they are seeing in MLS isn't good enough. It smacks of short sightedness and short termism. Secondly, the designated player rule has stimulated this. The rule allows each MLS team to have one imported player that can earn above the MLS wage cap, a rule designed to lure the world's best, or at least better, players to the league and a rule which enabled LA Galaxy to secure Beckham's signature. I see the good intentions of the rule, the MLS want to see the best players, they want to become established as a credible league, but all I see in reality are problems. There are so many positive signs to take from the MLS in recent seasons. Attendances both in stadiums and television viewing figures on ESPN have risen to the point that since 2007, MLS clubs have followed in the footsteps of Europe and have sourced shirt sponsors because of the increased exposure. By 2011 the league will have 18 teams, Vancouver, Portland and Philadelphia, who are joining next season, will all have teams. Four North American teams now also qualify for the CONCACAF Champions League, winning it could see an American side playing one of Europe's best sides in the World Club Cup Championship in the not too distant future. But now every article is looking for the correlation between Beckham's appearances and attendance levels.

It leads to strange state of flux. On the one hand, so many changes have occured in recent seasons which have grown the MLS. On the other, the designated player rule makes a mockery of this growth.